ADMINISTRATION OF MUSLIM LAW (AMENDMENT) BILL

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Community Development (Mr Abdullah Tarmugi): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA) was enacted in 1968. The Act establishes the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS) to administer Muslim affairs and the Syariah Court to decide on matters such as divorce, custody, maintenance and division of matrimonial property. Both the Syariah Court and the Civil Courts have co-existed for many years. They have complemented each other in ensuring that justice is administered to Muslims who have to make recourse to the law to resolve their family matters. Muslim women have, for many years, looked to the Civil Courts to claim maintenance from their husbands. Over the years, Muslims have also turned to the Civil Courts to resolve custody disputes under our Guardianship of Infants Act.

There is one important area where Muslim women, especially, have turned to the Civil Courts. After a divorce has taken place, the Syariah Court may order that one party transfer the ownership of the home to the other. Where that party refuses to do so, the other party has often turned to the High Court for a Declaration that the matrimonial home be transferred, as directed by the Syariah Court. Once this Declaration is obtained, the transfer papers can be executed by the Supreme Court's Registrar even if the party who is ordered to transfer the home refuses to do so.

This situation has existed for many years. Both the Civil Courts and Syariah Court have worked together in order to resolve family disputes involving Muslims. Muslims benefited greatly from this as there was a range of options open to them to pursue their quest for justice. They have had a choice. Throughout the entire period the Civil Courts were careful not to interfere in the religious aspects of the Syariah Court. Thus the Civil Courts never interfered with matters such as divorce, betrothal, nullity or the determining of iddah and mutaah. These remained exclusively within the Syariah Court.

This situation changed in 1995 when, in the case of Salijah v Abdullah Teo, the Court of Appeal ruled that Muslims cannot seek a Declaration from the High Court. Even though the Court of Appeal ultimately granted a Mandatory Injunction to give effect to the Syariah Court's order, there was concern that this meant that in future, Muslims could no longer turn to the Civil Courts as they did before.

This concern was exacerbated when in November 1996, in Lathibaby's case, the High Court ruled that it had no jurisdiction to hear custody and maintenance cases involving Muslim children where the parents had either:

(a) applied to the Syariah Court for divorce; or

(b) had been divorced in that Court.

These cases have unsettled what has been an established system for the Muslim community in Singapore. Suddenly, Muslims in Singapore no longer enjoyed the avenues and choices they had for many years for the resolution of disputes over family matters.

A real and urgent issue therefore had arisen which would affect pending and future cases. Sir, let me give Members an idea of the size of the problem. In 1996, for example, 2,445 Malay couples filed maintenance applications in the Family Court alone. In 1997, there were 2,401 applications, and in the first half of this year, 1,407 applications. The Syariah Court will not be able to cope with all these cases if it were to handle them alone.

Sir, I had consulted the Ministry of Law, AG's Chambers, MUIS, the Syariah Court and Malay MPs. They agreed with me that unless we reinstate and formalise the situation that had existed before the Lathibaby's case, we would face, as one of my officials put it, "daily queues forming outside the Syariah Court that stretch right down to Toa Payoh!" We therefore chose to restore the status quo ante. But more than this, Sir, I think we cannot, as a principle, deny Muslim couples their rightful access to the Civil Courts if they so choose this forum to solve their disputes.

This amendment has been labelled by some people as "reactive" rather than taking a long-term view of the development of the Syariah Court and the aspirations of the Muslim community. Sir, I do not apologise for this approach. When a man is drowning, taking the long-term view of teaching him to swim does nothing to save him from his present predicament! There is a problem that needed resolution and our responsibility must be to find a quick, effective and practicable solution.

Let me reiterate that this Bill seeks to enable established practices which have worked satisfactorily to continue. What the Bill proposes is that, as a base, the Syariah Court would have jurisdiction over all matters presently within its jurisdiction where the parties are Muslims or were married according to Muslim law. However, parties can agree to go to the Civil Courts for disputes over maintenance, custody of children and division of matrimonial property. Where there is no agreement, a Muslim party can only go to the Civil Courts if he first obtains leave from the Syariah Court. A grant of such leave by the Syariah Court can be challenged. Ultimately, the Syariah Court's Appeal Board will decide on the issue. To avoid duplicity of proceedings, the Bill provides that where one court has jurisdiction over a matter, the other court will cease to have any jurisdiction over that matter.

To give effect to all these, this Bill amends the relevant provisions of both AMLA as well as the Supreme Court of Judicature Act.

Some have asked why cannot we just streamline and strengthen the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court, instead of reverting to the concurrent system. Yes, we should do that and indeed that is a matter which myself and my colleagues will pursue. But that will take time. Meanwhile, we should not let matters be in a limbo because it is not good for the Muslim community.

I must stress at this stage that neither the Civil Courts nor the Government is forcing concurrent jurisdiction on the community. Government has always held the view that the Muslim community itself will have to decide what it wants and where it wants to go provided it is in the context of the type of society Singapore is and the role that the community wishes to play within this society.

Let me now refer to other parts of the Bill. Foremost among these other matters are the conferment of additional powers on the Syariah Court. These will make the Syariah Court a much more efficient and effective body for the administration of justice to Muslims in family matters. These additional provisions are as follows:-

(a) Giving effect to Syariah Court Orders -

The Bill proposes that Syariah Court Orders can be registered with the District Court for purposes of enforcement. The formidable enforcement machinery of the Civil Courts will now be used to enforce judgements made by the Syariah Court.

The Syariah Court can also now amend, vary or rescind its orders. Previously it had no such power and any amendment or recission of an order made must be by way of appeal to the Appeal Board.

The Court can also now order costs to be paid by any party. Additionally, it can execute documents, such as transfers of property, on behalf of a defaulting party who has refused to do so. This resolves the problem highlighted in the Salijah case.

(b) Improvements to Syariah Court Operations -

This Bill seeks to improve the efficiency of the Syariah Court by enabling additional Presidents to be appointed. It also includes a new provision prescribing that decisions of the Syariah Court and the Appeal Board are final and that there can be no further appeal or review of these decision by the Civil Courts.

(c) Transitional Provision -

There is a transitional provision. We also have introduced a saving provision enabling cases which are pending in the Civil Courts to proceed in these courts without the need for consent of the other party or leave from the Syariah Court.

Let me now turn to MUIS. Mr Speaker, Sir, the powers of MUIS also need to be enhanced to give it more focus and to enable it to operate its religious functions more effectively. Since 1975, the Saudi authorities have preferred to deal only with MUIS on Haj (pilgrimage) matters. This is largely due to the powers and good standing of MUIS as the supreme Islamic authority in Singapore, and the amendment seeks to recognise this key function. MUIS will be empowered to be the authority to regulate pilgrimage services. But it will not directly operate or be involved in operating pilgrimage services itself.

MUIS has also been advising on halal matters as it is an issue of concern to the Muslim public. The proposed amendment will give MUIS the sole authority to advise on halal matters, to regulate halal certification, and to issue halal certificates itself.

Prosecution of offenders under the Sale of Food Act and the Penal Code remains unchanged, as of now.

These amendments will strengthen MUIS' position as the authority on Muslim affairs in Singapore.

It is unwise for MUIS as a religious body to be directly involved in commercial activities, and as a statutory board, MUIS is currently constrained from adopting market practices. AMLA is therefore to be amended to allow it, with my approval, to form companies and joint ventures. Those current operations of MUIS that are more commercial in nature, such as property development, property maintenance and wakaf administration, can be carried out by subsidiary companies which can manage such operations more effectively. The separate accounting by these subsidiary companies will also enable MUIS to streamline its operations, make it more focused and prevent cross-subsidies of inefficient projects by more economically viable ones.

The accounts of MUIS will also be streamlined. The accounts of any trust, wakaf, nazar and mosque vested in MUIS are separate accounting entities from MUIS' accounts, which comprise the General Endowment Fund, the Mosque Building Fund and MENDAKI Fund and such other accounts which the Minister may specify in the Gazette. It is not necessary to have them consolidated with MUIS' accounts. The amendments will clearly separate these accounting entities from MUIS' accounts and will make them subjected to a separate audit. MUIS will now separately control and audit these accounts, and report the results to me.

Other proposed amendments are:-

(a) Appointment of an acting President of MUIS in the event of a sudden vacancy of the post.

(b) The minimum amount in issue for appeal to the Appeal Board from the Syariah Court will be raised from $25 to $450 to discourage frivolous appeals. The Appeal Board will have powers to charge fees. The term of office of the Appeal Board will also be increased from one to two years.

(c) The penalties for teaching false doctrine or deviant teachings will be increased from $500 to $2,000 to serve as a deterrent.

Sir, I believe the amendments proposed in this Bill will strengthen MUIS and the Syariah Court. We will continue to monitor the development of both these institutions and make changes where necessary.

Sir, I have discussed the amendments carefully with my Malay MP colleagues and I have their support. My colleagues and I understand and empathise with the aspirations of the Muslim community. We know too that the Muslim community's reaction to changes to AMLA is generally positive although there are some concerns over certain amendments particularly on concurrent jurisdiction. I have received much feedback from the community. To give these views a chance to be aired, heard and considered I shall commit the Bill to a Select Committee.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

The Senior Minister of State for the Environment (Encik Sidek bin Saniff) (In Malay): Sir, I stand up to support the amendment proposed by the Minister in charge of Muslim Affairs.

Sir, today we are going to debate on the issue of amendment which is very significant to AMLA which has been in existence since 1968. There are two areas of importance and should be given due attention. Firstly, with regard to the expanding power of MUIS and the Syariah court especially; and the other, the parallel power between the Syariah Court and the Civil Court.

I support fully the proposal of the Minister that the amendments should be refined by the Select Committee. The Malay Muslim community should study closely the existing power of MUIS, covering the performance of haj, halal food and the issuance of certificates, joint ventures and the appointment of President of MUIS, etc. This should be refined, even though I believe there are many others who will pay more attention towards the parallel power of the Syariah Court and the Civil Court.

Please allow me to touch on this very sensitive issue. Firstly, both these two courts (Syariah Court and Civil Court) have been utilised by the Malay Muslim community. Previously it was not encoded in AMLA. Now it has been encoded in AMLA. Secondly, though it has been encoded, the choice is up to the rights of the Malay Muslim community themselves. The Government or the Civil Court has no power to force. I would like to stress here that this chapter, ie, the Civil Court and the Government have no power to force. Thirdly, the cases of Salijah v. Abdullah Teo and Lathibaby could be one of the reasons to have this parallel amendment. Fourthly, the concern.

These steps seem to be tidy and smooth with the intention to confer rights to the Singapore society as a whole. However, because of the system that is solid, as found in the administration of the Civil Court, for instance, having a longer history, and very systematic, that may influence many people, especially those who do not understand fully and may take the easy way out by going to the Civil Court without due regard to other avenues. Indirectly, this problem can be taken to embarrass the Syariah Court or the Islamic law. Then people will start pointing fingers at the amendment, even though without any malicious intent from anyone to slur anybody.

So too with having the additional President of the Syariah Court. The purpose is to assist in settling the long waiting list, ie, from Syariah Court to Toa Payoh and these people may fall into committing other evil deeds because of the long waiting list and this will cause more problems. There may be others who will think that if that is not enough, why not have one more Syariah Court so that you do not have to refer to the Civil Court. I believe these matters must be resolved with due care by the Select Committee.

Some realities must be understood. Firstly, the parallel power may be taken as a problem. The power between the Syariah Court and the Civil Court can be seen as a problem whereas the true problem is within ourselves, the Muslim community. The problem of the Malay Muslim community is with regard to their moral principles. Thus, the Syariah Court has a problem to settle their matters as well as the Civil Court. However, if the Malay-Muslim community fully value and appreciate Islamic laws and the teachings of their Prophet, maintaining harmony of familyhood, there is a possibility that the Civil Court may not be used at all, nor even the addition of the President of the Syariah Court will be needed. This is the real problem. We have to rectify ourselves.

In the Koran it is stated: "This day I have perfected your religion for you and completed thy favour unto you, and have chosen for you as religion Al-Islam." Islam is encompassing and complete. We have to equip ourselves with Islam. The Almighty also has stated that there is cure to every sickness, there is answer to every question and solution to every problem. We should not blame anyone. We ourselves must sort out our own problems. This is also a challenge for us, so that we can solidify our belief and approach of "removing wrongdoings takes precedence over introducing new benefits". In line with this, several regulated or systemic steps should be undertaken.

Firstly, a conscientious effort must be undertaken so that teachings of Islam will be fully appreciated by the community and that they will carry out what is required of them and will not do that is not required of them. The inculcation of self-evangelism or dakwah and tabligh plan must be undertaken involving all Islamic institutions.

Secondly, the credibility and character of the Syariah Court must be kept and maintained so that only those having the expertise will be chosen, particularly for the post of the President of the Syariah Court. The deep understanding of the language of the Koran is very urgent and cogent so that there will be no other misinterpretation.

Thirdly, all Islamic scholars, Islamic leaders and professionals must cooperate to contribute their knowledge leading to the Islamic resurgence so that its followers will not be misunderstood by non-Muslims without regard to situation and condition. In fact, contributions from these Muslims are being expected and hoped for as had been done by the Prophet himself towards the Jews and the Christians in Medina which made it possible for the existence of the Medina Charter or Declaration. That was the first early charter of Human Rights which was multi-racial, multi-religious, full of tolerance and harmony.

Lastly, Mr Speaker, I would like to think that the amendment of AMLA in relation to the parallel power of the Syariah Court to the Civil Court is something that is temporal. It is an emergency. It is not something that will be permanent. What is permanent to me is a unique cooperation among us. An important cooperation between two unique institutions, to ensure peace, harmony of its community. Hopefully, this will not go overboard of its religion in this unique country. This uniqueness, if channelled properly can give us benefit tremendously especially if it is less controversial or better still if there is no controversy at all. Then it will be a sweet symbol of tolerance in a multi-racial community which is dynamic and sophisticated. The propensity of this thing will become an impetus that will bring the Singapore community that is unique to a new millennium with a new burning spirit.

Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed (Cheng San): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank you very much for giving me the chance to speak in support of the Administration of Muslim Law (Amendment) Bill, which has been proposed by the Minister for Community Development and Minister in charge of Muslim Affairs, Mr Abdullah Tarmugi.

This amendment to the Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA) is long overdue and timely. Now, that it has gone through for years a process of thinking and formulation, it is now before us for our common good. Its passage seems to be very rough because of the many controversies enveloping it. It is not without blessing though. Hopefully, all of us will gain enlightenment through this exchange of ideas, be it inside or outside the House.

In this context, I support the decision of Minister Abdullah Tarmugi to propose that the Bill be sent to a Select Committee. It is also my hope that the opportunity and the time given will be used fully for all parties to understand the background of the thinking behind the effort to do this amendment, particularly with regard to the parallel power of Syariah Court and the Civil Court; it should be seen not only from an ideal principle perspective but also the reality of the situation. If we were to pay too much importance to its principles and not its practicality, at least taking into account the present needs and conditions, we will face problems in finding solutions to the problems which we face now.

Truly, as a Muslim, I would wish the power that is bestowed on the Syariah Court to be absolute, but if this were to be done now, the question we have to ask ourselves is: will it assist us or otherwise? Every Muslim would want to look for blessings, but what must be done wisely is that it must be practical and suitable to the conditions in the context of the history of the Singapore society which includes being multi-racial and multi-religious.

The passage to look for the ideal model to implement a Muslim way of life is indeed far and long. It must be done in stages. It is better to be slow but steady. Islamic governments, countries or Muslim majority communities are not one as to which model accurately fulfills their needs. This can be seen in the economic, political or even social system.

With your permission, Mr Speaker, my experience since 1973, about 25 years ago, since attending the International Youth Conference in Libya, making research and studies as to how Islamic governments and countries and minority Islamic communities handled these issues. They include Islamic developments in the Middle East, and the Islamic revolution in Iran, Islam and secularism in Turkey, Malay/Muslim community in South Africa, Pancasila and Islam in Indonesia and the thinking and process of Islamisation of UMNO and PAS in Malaysia, simply show how varied these examples are.

The Islamic world is at variance. In fact, they develop animosity between one another in their search for a solution as to how to imbue Islamic values and system of administration. In the ASEAN region, through the cooperation of Mabims, (unofficial cooperation among the Religious Councils of Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei) there are efforts towards finding convergence and to learn different experiences from one another.

We should be proud that even though Singapore is generally a secular country, Islam has an important place in society. Together with other religions, Islam is encouraged to play an important role that is positive and constructive. The existence of MUIS as a statutory body bears testimony to that. In addition, the Registry of Muslim Marriages and the Syariah Court play an important role with regard to the questions of marriages and other ancillary matters.

The way we handle these matters is being seen by others, Muslims and non-Muslims in and outside Singapore. This is an important process. It is a test for us to show how Islam and the Islamic community can live harmoniously even though Singapore generally is a secular country. The system of administration and development programmes that are found in Singapore is an example for other minority Muslim communities throughout the world. In fact, there are also countries with an Islamic majority which may want to learn our system of Islamic administration. Examples which I can put forward is the administration of MUIS, the question of construction and administration of mosques, the system of halal certification, marriage registry and also the Syariah Court. We must pay high regard to these good examples. Our community has taken bold steps in many areas. Ideas and programmes for the development of the Islamic community have borne results. I believe and am confident that we will continue to be able to show examples of good systems and ideas as to how to live in a secular and plural environment.

Through the amendment of AMLA, particularly for MUIS and the Syariah Court, the positions of these two Islamic institutions can be strengthened. For MUIS, although its scope of work has expanded and MUIS has undertaken more tasks, including the management of the performance of haj, issuance of halal certificates, wakaf development, family development and various socio-economic projects, AMLA does not reflect that.

With this amendment, the position of MUIS, as the supreme body of Islam in Singapore, will be `formalised'. MUIS by right should expand its role in line with the needs of the times and aspirations of the community. However, MUIS must be realistic in fulfilling these hopes to avoid a situation where (a Malay proverb) it fails to get what it wants and at the same time loses what is already at hand. MUIS must be given the support for manpower, particularly professionals who can shoulder this responsibility. MUIS should be given the power which is wide-ranging and strengthened with even bigger resources. The community must show their support by giving more contributions to zakat or the development fund of the mosques.

Coming back to the question of the Syariah Court, if we were to look closely at the real situation, I am confident that the amendments bring more benefits than weaknesses. This has been clarified by Mr Abdullah Tarmugi earlier. However, the problem that has arisen, in fact a cause for controversy, is the concurrent jurisdiction conferred on the Civil Court to handle some aspects of divorce, including custody, maintenance and the division of matrimonial property. This, as stated by Mr Abdullah Tarmugi, is not a new thing. In fact, there were many other such cases that were settled with the help of the Civil Court.

With this amendment, the power of the Civil Court to carry out this task will be `formalised'. There will no longer be any controversy as to whether the Civil Court has the power or not to handle the matter. The situation in the past was embarrassing. Some people were saying as though we had no shame to ask when we were not welcome. But with this amendment it will be official.

This will definitely help. This is another alternative avenue to handle the cases. Nevertheless, the concern of some sections of society is also true as the ground for settling the cases is based on a different basis of law.

To my mind, whilst we accept the concurrent system, we should also monitor these cases so that the issue of conflicting laws could be avoided. The differences should also be explained to the community so that they will be more responsible in their decision-making in order to resolve their problems. Besides, the President of the Syariah Court is empowered not to grant leave to the cases which it thinks need the attention of the Syariah law.

Also, the process to enhance the resources of the Syariah Court must continue. In fact, it should be actively pursued so that the time will come when the Syariah Court can handle all these cases. However, until we reach that stage, we must be realistic by taking this middle path. It may not be ideal but it will ensure that we can cope with the problems ahead of us.

We must realise that the resources in the Civil Court are also our country's resources too. We must know how to utilise it if it can fulfil the needs of the Muslim community in Singapore. Not all cases that can be handled by the Civil Court will be in conflict with the Islamic tenets. For these cases, the facilities of the Civil Court should be used together by the Muslim community. These resources belong to the Muslim community too.

Finally, these amendments have been initiated with the intention to improve the situation. The aim is noble. Although not ideal and perfect, it should be seen as a temporary way out or as an emergency way out, while the Syariah Court is strengthened.

Mr Ahmad Mohd Magad (Pasir Ris): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, firstly, I would like to express that we have made considerable progress and many laudable developments have been introduced to the amendment of AMLA during its First Reading in this House on 20th April 1998. What is clear is that the amendments will provide various ways for MUIS to carry out and widen its role more effectively. Among others, as explained by the Minister for Community Development and the Minister responsible for Muslim Affairs, Mr Abdullah Tarmugi earlier, the amendments will allow MUIS to form or participate in the formation of companies, joint-ventures or partnerships. MUIS will also be vested with the proper powers to deal with Halal issues.

What is even more crucial, I believe, is the fact that the amendments involve the enhancement of powers and capabilities of the Syariah Court. Under the proposed amendments the Syariah Court will continue to retain exclusive jurisdiction over matters, such as marriage issues, divorce, dissolution of engagements, dissolution of marriages and divorce orders.

In addition to these exclusive powers, the Syariah Court will also be bestowed with five additional powers, as described in the Amendment Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, many of the additional powers in the proposed amendment are intended to strengthen the authority of the Syariah Court so that it can exercise its role more effectively. However, I feel that some of the proposed changes may have contributed to some confusion. What I mean is the parallel or concurrent jurisdiction which allows Muslims the choice of seeking remedy in ancillary matters, such as custody and maintenance claims and division of matrimonial property either at the Syariah Court or the Civil Court.

The proposal for the amendment to the Act arises among others, from the case of Mdm Salijah Abdul Latif and Abdullah Teo in 1993 for the division of matrimonial property as mentioned by Mr Abdullah Tarmugi. Two years later, the case was brought to the High Court before Justice Prakash who held that the High Court had no jurisdiction on the matter. Mdm Salijah appealed but the Appeal Court agreed with the decision of Justice Prakash. Subsequently, the High Court rejected two more cases involving Muslim couples and these decisions closed the avenue for Muslim divorcing couples to seek remedy and resolution at the Civil Courts.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Syariah Court is created because of its status in AMLA. AMLA confers the jurisdiction that it possesses and the High Court itself concurred that it does not have the right to interfere in cases involving Muslim couples. Therefore, it is opportune for us and all those involved to consider deeply and thoroughly how the amendments to the Administration of Muslim Law Act can enable the Syariah Court to resolve problems and issues of divorcing Muslim couples effectively, especially in the areas of matrimonial property, maintenance and custody of children.

In today's context, the issues of matrimonial property, custody and maintenance are not peripheral matters any more. They are becoming more the core and crucial issues which, more often than not, are matters for contention.

Although we have the Civil Courts, I believe a more comprehensive solution which takes account of Islamic considerations can only be obtained by couples choosing the avenue of the Syariah Court. This includes the question of custody, division of property, apostasy of couples, rules of evidence, and other regulations. It is these very differences that led to the creation of the Syariah Court meant to specially handle Muslim cases relating to the Syariah laws.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we must see this development as an effort to give enhanced recognition and authority to the Syariah Court so that the amendment to the AMLA will fulfil and overcome the shortcomings and limitations that are inherent in the Syariah Court. Hence, the amendment to AMLA in this connection, must take into account the long-term implications. The amendments to AMLA should, as much as feasible, provide the Syariah Court with sufficient jurisdiction to enable it to act independently according to the tenets of Islam, in line with the needs of the Muslim community. We must anticipate more complicated problems to emerge in future and as such, should properly equip that the Syariah Court with relevant powers of jurisdiction to prevent the Muslim community from being trapped again in a similar situation in the future. Therefore, it is incumbent on us to explore new approaches so that in the long term, Muslim couples need only go to the Syariah Court to resolve their matrimonial problems.

It is a known fact that Muslims in Singapore have made their claims in the Civil Court since 1968. But it must be borne in mind that this is so because they really did not have much choice, owing to the shortcomings of the Syariah Court which was seen to be less effective compared to the Civil Courts.

However, the proposed amendments to the AMLA are laudable as it will help in reducing the backlog of long standing divorce cases and also other cases that have remained unresolved for a long period. Undoubtedly, the proposed concurrent jurisdiction of allowing Muslims to have the choice of resolving their ancillary claims in the Civil Court can speed up many of these outstanding cases. This is possible because of the efficient machinery, manpower and the mechanism that are readily available in the Civil Court. Because of the shortcomings in the Syariah Court today, this opportunity can be maximised fully. In other words, Muslim couples can refer their cases to the Civil Courts so that the outstanding and complicated cases can be resolved quickly. This could continue until such time when the situation (in the Syariah Court) improves and is more manageable.

This approach, in my view, although effective, should be employed in the short- term or temporarily only, while we work towards equipping and beefing up the Syariah Court with the proper manpower, management systems, mechanism, expertise and so on.

Indeed, I feel the Government itself could feel proud if in the midst of a plural and secular society, Singapore is able to create a credible Syariah Court. Since the amendment to AMLA affects the various aspects of life of the Muslim community in Singapore, I think it would be proper for it to be carried out by consultation, taking into account the views of various quarters in the Muslim community in Singapore, including the Muslim intellectuals.

In this regard, I am happy that the amendment to AMLA will be referred to a Select Committee as revealed by the Minister, Mr Abdullah Tarmugi, earlier so that it can be looked at more thoroughly, with considered views of the community. These efforts and endeavours will lead to the creation and upliftment of the status of the Syariah Court in the long term, and if found feasible, a status change from a tribunal to a full-fledged court which is capable of handling all matrimonial issues involving Muslim couples without having to resort to the Civil Court.

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the amendment to AMLA presented by Minister Abdullah Tarmugi.

Encik Harun A. Ghani (Hong Kah): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the Malay language month. I will begin my speech with a Malay pantun. Roughly, it means that since Mr Abdullah has given the chance, many will be speaking and we anticipate that it will attract a lot of criticisms.

Mr Speaker, I fully support the Amendment Bill. Firstly, this Bill is long overdue. Thus, I congratulate Mr Abdullah Tarmugi for having the courage to bring this Bill to Parliament. And when the Act is amended, it will bring much good to the Muslim community and no power is forcing it upon us to accept it if the amendment is bad. Of course, I think our Minister has discussed with all his Parliamentary colleagues to ensure the smooth passage of the Bill so that the Bill can be accepted by all levels of society. Unfortunately, the final word from the Minister is that he wants to bring this Bill to a Select Committee. Of course, I feel that the Minister wishes more people from the Muslim community to voice their problems through consultation. I think, prior to that, the Muslim Religious Council must play its role by calling upon all religious scholars and Muslim bodies to come to an agreement.

In this regard, many matters have been touched on by our colleagues earlier and many are of the view that a controversy will arise regarding the issue of the Syariah Court and the Civil Courts. The Minister said that, without having it enshrined in the law, the Muslim community has already sought redress in the Family Court. For example, in 1996, there were 2,445 families; in 1997, 2,401 families. And in the six months of this year, there were 1,407 families. That is, without having it enshrined in the law, there were already so many cases. So I think that is a problem with the Muslim community and it should not be enshrined by allowing the Muslims to go to the Civil Courts. Indirectly, the image of the Syariah Court will be affected. To me, we should leave the section in its status quo. That is my view.

I say this because, without having it enshrined in the law, there are already so many Muslims going to the Civil Courts. And if you are going to have it as a law, it is as if we are saying that Muslims can go to the Civil Courts and ignore the Syariah Court. That is the view of some people. We should look at this problem more thoroughly although the parallel jurisdiction is provided to the Syariah Court and the Civil Courts.

There may arise a situation in which the two courts, having parallel jurisdiction, may pass different decisions. And, at the end of the day, we will have an orange sour on one half, ie, sour on the side of one court and sweet on the side of the other court. The ones who will lose will be our own community.

Mr Speaker, I commend the proposal by the Minister to bring this amendment Bill to a Select Committee because he feels that this is an opportunity and chance for the Muslim bodies, Muslim community, scholars, experts, especially those who are experts in legal matters, to come together to look into this Bill so that the amendments proposed will have the agreement of the whole community.

Dr Yaacob Ibrahim (Jalan Besar): Mr Speaker, Sir, this amendment to the Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA) is indeed very comprehensive and wide-ranging. It covers two major institutions governing Muslim life in Singapore, namely, the Islamic courts, better known as the Syariah Court, and the Muslim Religious Council of Singapore, better know by its Malay acronym, MUIS.

The amendment constitutes the first major amendment to AMLA since its inception more than 30 years ago. AMLA was approved in this House on 17th August 1966 after it was sent to a Select Committee. In 1975, changes were made to allow Muslims to make contributions to the Mosque Building Fund via the CPF check off system. Two review committees were formed: one in 1985 and another in 1992. These committees recognised the need to close some gaps in the existing legislation and to provide new powers to key Islamic institutions to keep up with a changing Muslim population in Singapore. However, in closing these gaps, careful deliberation was also needed given the very sensitive nature of any attempt to change matters pertaining to Singapore's Muslim institutional framework. I must therefore congratulate the Minister in charge of Muslim Affairs, Mr Abdullah Tarmugi, for finally closing the loop after 13 long years. We, as a community, had to close the gaps.

Changes to MUIS

Mr Speaker, Sir, the changes the amendment makes to MUIS are indeed welcome. The move to empower MUIS to regulate halal certification and pilgrimage or haj reflects the need to better manage changing expectations within the community. Many food outlets in Singapore have recognised the growing Muslim market and have turned halal in order to attract this market. MUIS' new role in the regulation of halal certification should reassure the Muslim community that outlets with halal certification are halal throughout their operations. Similarly, with this amendment, MUIS will have the power to regulate and penalise travel agents offering haj packages. With these changes, Muslim pilgrims will be better protected and they can concentrate on the rituals without worrying about flights, hotel, meal service, ground transportation and other related matters.

This amendment would also allow MUIS to form companies to develop fully its assets, especially its vast land bank, which it holds under wakaf or trust. The role of wakaf is essentially charitable. Properties remain in perpetuity but the profits are channelled to help charitable institutions. The Minister has assured us that MUIS will not be directly involved in the running of these companies. However, the amendment gives MUIS an avenue of ensuring that its assets are optimally developed. This will ultimately benefit the community at large. These changes, as I said earlier, are a reflection of the growing expectations of the community and of the community's expectations that MUIS plays a greater and effective role in the affairs of the community. Hence I support totally the changes to MUIS. Changes to Syariah Court

This amendment also has a major impact on the Syariah Court, which is empowered to deal with Muslim personal matters in Singapore. Over the years, many Muslims have resorted to the Civil Court to seek enforcement of judgments. We frequently hear about the problems Muslim women and their children face when husbands refuse to sign the transfer documents for the matrimonial home. Often, these women do not have the financial resources to set up a household on their own. The amendment would allow the Syariah Court President to sign the transfer documents if the husband fails to do so after being instructed. This is a significant move towards reducing the financial pain and anguish which has too often been associated with Muslim divorces in Singapore.

Another key change made by this amendment is the strengthening of section 53. With this change, the Syariah Court now can make use of the infrastructure of the civil justice system to punish errant couples. Section 53 gives powers to the court to jail anyone refusing to comply with court orders. However, making use of these powers requires an entire support system. For example, the setting up of bonds and services of a bailiff are needed in order to ensure that the jailed person's rights are observed. The Syariah Court does not have these facilities. With this amendment, the Syariah Court can tap into the existing resources of our justice system. This approach should be seen as an opportunity for the Syariah Court to develop further its own strength and human resources.

Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps the most significant change this amendment would bring is the adoption of the so-called parallel jurisdiction approach. A couple, as mentioned by the Minister earlier, can now choose to proceed to either the Civil Court or remain in the Syariah Court after a divorce has been granted. As a result, ancillary matters such as custody, maintenance and the disposal of the matrimonial home can now be dealt with in either the Civil Court or the Syariah Court. However, to proceed to the Civil Court, both parties, ie, the ex-husband and ex-wife, would have to agree to do so. If the couple does not agree to do so, the party wishing to proceed to the Civil Court can apply for leave from the Syariah Court President to grant them permission to proceed to the Civil Court. For the House's information, and as mentioned by the Minister earlier, Muslim couples have in the past chosen to proceed to the civil courts. However, this avenue was closed as a result of the case of Madam Salijah Latif. This amendment restores this avenue. The question is whether re-opening this avenue is the right thing to do. The so-called parallel jurisdiction approach this amendment adopts has raised fears that it will dilute Islamic law in Singapore.

Let us consider the practical impact this amendment will have in greater detail. Would a Muslim couple be given similar justice if they proceed to the Civil Court instead of remaining in the Syariah Court in the case of an amicable divorce? I am not a lawyer. But I believe both the Syariah and Civil Courts would take into account the interests of the wife, husband and children in making decisions pertaining to ancillary matters. In such cases, Muslim couples would not be short changed if they proceed to the Civil Court. Hence, with this amendment, such couples would have more legal avenues and would likely be able to resolve ancillary matters in a shorter time. A divorce is never easy. The sooner the couple and the children can get on with their lives, the better it will be for all parties. So under what circumstances would different legal outcomes arise?

Mr Speaker, there are instances where the outcome under Islamic law is different from the outcome under civil law. Consider the following example. The husband renounces Islam after the divorce. If the couple has a young child, it is very likely that the Syariah Court would grant custody to the Muslim wife. But what happens if the non-Muslim husband makes a better parent? What happens if the Muslim party is a drug addict? In such a case, the Civil Court would most likely give custody to the responsible parent. Of course, when the Syariah Court grants custody to the Muslim parent, I believe it takes the view that the raising of the children according to Islam is to be done by the family and community and not only by the parent. The Minister has given us the assurance that the religion of the children will be considered by the Civil Court. Perhaps the public is looking for further guarantees.

In Islam, conduct is an important criterion in determining custody. A bad wife, as an example, is unlikely to gain custody of the child. In the civil system, conduct is quite immaterial. An adulterous wife may be given custody of the child. Hence, this is another instance where you may get a different ruling from the Civil and Syariah Courts.

In view of these differences, great pains will need to be taken to address the concerns recently raised about the dilution of Islamic law under the amendment. In particular, we need to examine carefully whether the amendment provides for an adequate gate-keeping mechanism to prevent such differing outcomes. Requiring a couple that disagrees on proceeding to the Civil Court to apply for leave from the Syariah Court can, in fact, work to ensure that problematic cases are dealt with appropriately in the Syariah Court. But this raises another concern. While I believe that it is good to give powers to the Syariah Court to decide on leave applications, it is important that we make this process transparent. Could we not consider outlining some conditions under which leave could be granted or otherwise? While I am confident that the Syariah Court judges would decide such applications wisely, I am sure that a transparent process would reassure the community that leave will not be granted solely in the interest of bureaucratic expediency and not on the merits of the case.

Sir, this amendment also makes the Muslim couple responsible for deciding which system they want their case to be heard in. I believe this is a very good approach. Divorcing couples must be made aware of the repercussions of divorce, especially on the children. The amendment would allow the divorcing couple to decide which legal avenue would most effectively serve their personal and children's interest. But measures must be taken to ensure that the Syariah Court's role in divorce proceedings is not undermined by our ever growing hunger for expedient quick fixes.

Sir, the Syariah Court is a very unique institution. The lawyers who appear before the judge are trained in civil law and not in Islamic law. The judge, however, is trained in Islamic law. This anomaly perhaps reflects our position as a minority Muslim community within a larger multi-racial, multi-religious, multi-cultural society where the law of the land is not based on any religion. Hence, Sir, in reflecting upon the impact this amendment will have on the Syariah Court, I have thought more broadly about the position the Syariah Court has within the context of the larger legal system in Singapore. The Syariah Court plays a special role. It occupies an institutional niche, dealing as it does with Muslim personal matters - a substantive area which other courts do not have the professional competency to operate in. This amendment establishes a stronger linkage between the Syariah Court and the broader legal system in Singapore. Under it, the Syariah Court can more easily and fully tap the expertise and resources of our legal system. But, Sir, could we not find ways to make the link stronger? With a stronger link, for example, the training and the professional career track opportunities of the Syariah Court judges could more closely mirror those of the judges and legal staff within the broader legal system. The sharing of resources would be more complete and comprehensive and could include the location of the Syariah Court within the same legal complex as the Family and other Civil Courts.

Sir, I believe this amendment in its net effect is beneficial to the Muslim community. Some have criticised the amendment, arguing for the creation of a separate Syariah Court system unto itself. Creating an entirely separate system would not only demand very large financial outlays but substantial commitments in training and recruitment. Much of these outlays would merely go into duplicating services and competencies already available in the larger legal community. Creating such a system would also require time. One needs to ask whether such outlays and commitments are the best use of our limited resources. The present amendment, by taking an approach which taps into existing resources, eliminates this resource allocation issue. It does, however, raise concerns about the dilution of Islamic law in Singapore. As I mentioned earlier, safeguards are needed to address these concerns.

Sir, I support this amendment. The original AMLA Bill in 1966 was sent to a Select Committee. I am glad that the Minister has decided to send this amendment to a Select Committee. It will give the opportunity to the wider Muslim community to express their concerns. It will also just as importantly give us the chance to hear views outside this House. In dealing with such a Bill which will affect the religious life of the Muslim community in Singapore, let us take every step possible to ensure that the concerns of the minority community, of which I am a member, are addressed completely.

Ultimately, I believe this Bill is about the identity and self-confidence of a community within the context of a larger Singaporean society. How that community, my community, sees itself is important to all of us here today and outside this House. If my community feels that its private space, its ability to practise its own religious beliefs, is at risk, then the common ground that we share, as Singaporeans, can be diminished. However, if my community feels secure in the belief that it can be both Muslim and Singaporean, then we would have all served the interest of the community and nation wisely.

Thank you.

Encik Ibrahim bin Othman (Bishan-Toa Payoh): (In Malay): Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. Since it was enacted more than 30 years ago, AMLA has fulfilled the needs of the Muslim community in Singapore. With AMLA, the Muslim community has been able to live comfortably and is able to progress together with others in Singapore.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

5.20 pm

Encik Ibrahim bin Othman (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Our success in building modern mosques, religious schools, raising funds to be distributed to different groups, development of wakaf land, clearly shows the effectiveness of AMLA in bringing the community to a higher status. The question now is this: is AMLA able to continue to fulfil the aspirations of the Muslim community in facing future challenges? I think the amendments can be said to be a positive and progressive step in assisting the Muslim community to face future challenges.

We must realize that the Muslim community is a minority in Singapore. Like other communities, we are subject to all the laws enacted in Parliament. Although our country is based on a secular system, the Muslim community is fortunate because AMLA has been created specifically for the Muslim community looking after us in the practice of Islam.

We must ensure that AMLA does not make our community to be alienated from the lives of the larger multi-racial community in Singapore. The amendment to AMLA this time is rather comprehensive and reflects the practical approach of the Muslim community in a plural and secular society in Singapore. Sir, the amendment to section 3 gives a clear provision on the functions and role of the Muslim Religious Council of Singapore. MUIS, as the body responsible for Islamic affairs, will have wider powers and need therefore to raise its service to be more effective. To be a more effective corporate body in carrying out its responsibilities, MUIS must attract more young talents to conduct its programmes.

The professionals working in MUIS will then be able to lead the community so that it will rise above the challenges, especially when we approach the new millennium. In relation to the Syariah Court, I support the amendment to section 35 where the President of the Republic of Singapore can appoint more than one President of the Syariah Court. The measure to have more than one President in the Syariah Court will alleviate the existing burden of the President of the Syariah Court. I am sure there are many more cases that can be quickly resolved in the Syariah Court. By virtue of new section 35, the position of the Syariah Court will be enhanced as a legal institution of equal status with the Civil Court in resolving divorce cases among Muslim couples.

Sir, I agree with the additional powers to be granted to the Syariah Court. Among them is the proxy power where the President of the Syariah Court can sign documents of transfer of property on behalf of those who refused to do so. There is also the enforcement of orders where the Syariah Court can impose a penalty against those who refuse to comply with its orders. With these amendments and having capable staff, I think the Syariah Court will be able to perform its duties fully and resolve the family disputes of the Muslim community more effectively in future.

But there are some quarters in the community which are concerned about new sections 35A and 35B allowing divorced Muslim couples to choose the civil law for the determination of custody, maintenance and division of matrimonial properties. They are fearful that the Islamic law will not be given consideration in determining the solution of these cases.

Sir, the question of Muslim couples resolving maintenance and custody matters in the civil court is not a new matter. For a long time, many Muslim women have gone to the civil courts to obtain maintenance from their husbands. Similarly, with custody. After divorce, they have accepted the decision of the Civil Court. This clearly shows that the Syariah Court and the Civil Court have been able together to play a role in the management of the problems of Muslim couples. As Muslims are also subject to the law of the State, they cannot be prevented from seeking justice from the Civil Court. I support the move to enable Muslim couples to seek resolution in the Civil Court in the matter of custody, maintenance and division of property if this does not contravene the Islamic law.

I would like to ask the Minister responsible for Muslim Affairs if there are any decisions of the Civil Courts so far that have been in conflict with Islamic law. If there are any, I believe it is the duty of the Syariah Court to advise Muslim couples that they should not seek the solution of their matrimonial matters in the Civil Court. Of course, the appropriate action would be for the Syariah Court to be strengthened with qualified officials who will be able to resolve their problems quickly. I would also like to know what is the position of the Mufti and the members of the Fatwa Committee on having matters resolved in the Civil Court. If the Syariah Court currently is not able to perform its duty in resolving the problems of Muslim couples effectively and quickly, could that be made an excuse for going to the Civil Court? I think this must be explained more carefully.

Sir, I would like to move on to the role of MUIS in the management of mosques and madrasahs (religious schools) in Singapore. The Muslim community generally welcomes the step taken by MUIS to encourage mosques to display their accounts to the congregation and this will enable the congregation and other philanthropists to know the true financial position of the mosques. Mosque officials appointed by MUIS must be suitably qualified residents who would therefore be able to carry out their duties more effectively. The plan by MUIS to employ a permanent full time administrator for every mosque is appropriate in the effort to enhance the status of the mosque as a corporate body. In the management of the religious schools, MUIS must make a decision on the structure or form of our madrasahs. The original aim of the madrasahs, as we know, is to provide indepth knowledge on Islam and for us to provide the scholars of the future. Today, more parents are sending their children to study in full-time madrasahs. Therefore, there is now a group of our children who miss the chance of undergoing education in regular schools which are, of course, of higher quality. They also miss the opportunity to mix with children of other communities. Is this trend good for the community and country? That is the question that we must consider. Can the madrasah graduates contribute to the economy of the country and can our children gain the quality education in madrasah?

Sir, the Muslim community must find the answers to these questions and decide on the appropriate madrasah system for our children. Hence, as parents, we are responsible for our children and we want our children to be pious Muslims and good citizens who can contribute to the country later. As the amendment to AMLA must be done in the spirit of consultation within the Muslim community, I support that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Information and the Arts (Encik Yatiman Yusof): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion made in the name of the Minister for Community Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs, Mr Abdullah Tarmugi.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in 1995, as the Minister had earlier stated in his speech, the High Court ruled that the Muslims involved in matrimonial case could not seek a declaration from the Court of Appeal. Then, the following year the High Court ruled that it had no jurisdiction to hear custody and maintenance cases involving Muslim children. Since then, there has been a backlog of cases. The number is about 200 cases per month or 2,000 cases per year.

The problem of dysfunctional families and the increase in divorce cases is not peculiar to the Muslim community in Singapore. Other communities too experience it. However, the problem for the Muslims had been compounded by the fact that the Syariah Court could not handle the volume.

Prior to this, the Subordinate Courts had been helpful in clearing the backlog. The Subordinate Courts took the view that there were conflicting decisions and took the cases. Now, following the High Court's ruling, this is not possible.

The question is: what shall we do? The amendment of AMLA is intended, inter-alia, to solve this urgent problem which is growing day by day, apart from strengthening the Muslim Religious Council (MUIS). It is unfortunate that public reactions tend to focus on the independent and non-concurrent jurisdiction of the Syariah Court.

Sir, there could be several reasons why public reactions have been such. The Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA) had been introduced about 30 years ago. Since its introduction, one generation had passed by. New problems and challenges had emerged. The Muslim community had undergone major change. The expectation of the community had increased. Better education and higher standard of living had fueled their confidence. Thus, when the proposed amendments were made known to them, they aspire for more. They want the Syariah Court to be the supreme governing body over Syariah laws. They want this position to be safeguarded.

Mr Deputy Speaker, their reaction is understandable and, as a Muslim, I share their concern. But what we need to do is to take into account the circumstances in which the amendments are introduced in this House. However, before going into this, Sir, we need to view the amendments in its entirety. The Bill seeks to amend AMLA (Chapter 3). Apart from conferring concurrent jurisdiction on the Civil Courts and the Syariah Court in certain matters, it also extends the function of Majlis Ugama Islam, Singapura, extends the powers of the Syariah Court, deals with halal certification, haj matters and the teaching of false doctrine.

The overall objective is to have a stronger and a more effective MUIS and to enhance the power of the Syariah Court. It is my belief that with these amendments, and given the strong resolve of the Muslims in Singapore, we can be better prepared to enter the new millennium.

Sir, let me now move into the amendments involving the Syariah Court. Why does the Government choose to have a concurrent jurisdiction? This is the question lingering in the minds of the Muslims. The Minister is absolutely correct in using the analogy of a drowning person. In other words, the amendments are meant to tackle problems in an emergency situation. I wish to add a number of reasons to this.

First, even in a non-emergency situation, experience in law-making process or process of legislation in many countries showed that the process is often an evolutionary one. Singapore is of no exception. In our case, despite its origin and historical roots, Islam has grown up in an independent country. This being the case, it has to embody this society in itself, and has to order, encourage and promote it. It has to regulate order and regulate this society, adopting its principles and its spirit.

We are fully aware that the theological beliefs of Islam are not divorced in nature, or in objective, from the day-to-day life of the Muslims. In fact, the way we conduct our day-to-day life reflects the belief and the customs of the Muslims vis-a-vis a multi-racial environment.

The amendments, therefore, should be seen as part of this evolutionary process. As the circumstances change and new demands arise, just like other laws, it will be improved, strengthened and even changed. In my view, the concurrent jurisdiction is a transitional arrangement and therefore is acceptable.

Can we not achieve the "ideal" state and have the Syariah Court that is seen as the supreme governing body over the Syariah law? The answer is, it is not impossible, but it takes a long time. For the time being, we have to do what is practicable, while we strengthen the Syariah Court's staffing and administrative capabilities so that they can carry the heavier and more complex responsibilities of the future. Sir, the nation's legal system gains its great reputation through similar evolutionary process. Rome was not built in a day. We need to be patient.

Second, experience in other countries in which Muslims form either the majority or minority population showed that Syariah or Religious Courts can take varied forms and exist in tandem or side by side with the secular legal system of the respective countries.

I was informed that, in Pakistan, the Syariah Courts do not enjoy the position as the supreme body over the Syariah laws. The Pakistani Supreme Court is the supreme body over both the Civil and Syariah Courts. The Civil Courts and Syariah Courts exist in parallel and the Syariah Courts in Pakistan have given the Civil Courts concurrent jurisdiction on matters pertaining to the resolution of post-divorce issues. Of course, Islamic law is the law of the land in Pakistan.

In Malaysia, according to the Information Malaysia 1998 Yearbook, prior to 1988, some cases involving Muslims could be heard by the secular courts. In 1988, Article 121 of the Constitution was amended so that the secular courts of Malaysia no longer have any jurisdiction over any matters within the jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts.

In Egypt, according to a former Egyptian High Court Chief Justice, there are no separate Syariah Courts in Egypt. All Syariah Courts were subsumed under the Civil Courts since 1955. The Civil Courts in Egypt comprise district governorate and higher appeal courts.

Presently, Civil Courts are divided into chambers that deal with civil, commercial and personal status matters separately. The chamber of personal status administers the Syariah laws. Hence, all jurisdiction on matters pertaining to the resolution of post-divorce issues falls under the Civil Courts or enforced under the civil power. The Civil laws in Egypt are based on written laws issued in the late 1920s and formulated from Islamic law and Islamic jurisprudence.

In India, I was informed that the Syariah Courts do not exist. However, India does not have a uniform civil code. There is a statute called "Sharia Act". When Muslims appear in a Civil Court (on divorce matters), the judgement on the cases is based on Syariah laws through the application of the "Sharia Act". They could appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, which will review their cases according to the Syariah laws.

In Indonesia, the Religious Court (this is the term used for the Syariah Court in Indonesia) is not the supreme body over the religious and Syariah laws. Chapter 1, Articles 1 and 2 of the Indonesian Laws No. 7/1989 on Religious Court state that the Religious Court is the judicial body for Muslims in certain civil cases as determined under Chapter III, Article 49.

The areas that come under the jurisdiction of the Religious Court in Indonesia are those pertaining to marriage; inheritance, wills, and grants based on Islamic laws; and property donated for religious or community use as charity or wakaf. The Religious Court co-exists with Civil Courts. The Civil Courts enjoy the same position as the Religious Court and each has its own judicial authority. In Indonesia, there are four judicial bodies. They are Civil Court, Religious Court, Military Court and State Administrative Court. The administrative, organisational and financial responsibilities of each of these Courts come under the respective Ministries although they are established under the Supreme Court.

Sir, the reason why I dwell at length on the experience of Muslims in other countries is none other than to emphasise that there are many ways of implementing the Syariah laws and, as the saying goes, there are many roads to Rome.

What is important is that we have to be creative in deploying selective elements of Islamic traditions, combined with ideas, techniques, institutions and facilities of the present and recent past to cope with the specially modern predicament: political, social, economic and cultural issues that emerged as a result of the changes that have affected the world.

Thirdly, let me ask this question. Do the amendments proposed by the Minister take away or in any manner deprive the Muslims of their rightful choice for the avenue to seek for justice? The answer is no. The amendments give the Muslims the right to exercise their free will. The control is entirely within the Muslim community themselves.

Finally, individual justice can never be fully satisfied within the condition of existence. We can follow all Islamic rules that, in their ultimate result, should provide us with the "happiness in both worlds". Moreover, we can follow other norms: medical, social, moral, but, because of the entanglement of fate or historical accident, we face a situation which places us under persistent "emergency" or abnormal condition. This we must understand and accept and find solutions to our problems within this context.

The challenge facing us is how to combine or reconcile Islamic law, Syariah, with the regulation of contemporary public and private matters. Given that Islam does not constitute a monolithic entity and not all Islamic countries or communities apply similar solution to their problems, the Bill, to me, is the solution currently available to us. It may not be the ideal, but it is, I believe, a workable one given the constraints facing the Muslims here. Let us work together in providing justice to thousands of Muslim men and women who are in real need of our urgent attention and, to quote the Minister, if they queue up the length could be from the MCD Building down to Toa Payoh.

It is in this context, Sir, that I am happy to learn and fully support the Bill to be committed to a Select Committee.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Hawazi Daipi (Sembawang): Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend and support the Minister's decision to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. There have been reactions from members of the Malay/Muslim community on the amendment to the Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA). Committing the Bill to a Select Committee will allow these feedback and views to be heard and debated.

In speaking to support the Bill, I am mainly concerned with the amendments proposed in the Bill which will affect the Syariah Court, firstly, by providing it with wider enforcement powers and, secondly, by conferring parallel jurisdiction between it and the Civil Court on matters relating to matrimonial, maintenance and custodial issues. I support fully the proposal to enhance the power and roles of the Islamic Religious Council (MUIS). But I would like to focus on the issue of parallel jurisdiction as it is widely considered as the most controversial aspect of the Amendment Bill.

To me, the proposed amendments are laudable in that they address the current shortcomings of the Syariah Court. Further, Muslim women will receive enhanced protection not only with the greater power of the Syariah Court President, but also because they can continue to refer matters of division of matrimonial properties, maintenance and custody to the Civil Court.

Sir, as has been widely known, the Syariah Court has been suffering from a tremendous backlog of cases, of which those pertaining to matrimonial and custodial issues form the bulk. In the short term, the granting of concurrent jurisdiction to the High Court in these matters will ease the pressures on the Syariah Court as well as allow many Muslim couples to settle outstanding issues arising from divorce proceedings as soon as possible.

Moreover, it cannot be denied that the amendments go a long way to clarify the confusion over jurisdiction in some cases earlier this year where it was unclear whether they fell under the purview of the Syariah Court or the High Court. I refer to the case of Madiah bte Atan v Samsudin bin Budin in January 1998. The case of Salijah v Abdullah Teo in 1995, as mentioned by the Minister and my colleagues, raised concern as to whether the Muslim community could continue to refer their cases to the Civil Court as they did in the past. This amendment to AMLA, therefore, merely restores the choice that they had enjoyed before.

However, in the long term, are these amendments sufficient in themselves to correct the problems without jeopardizing the reputation and image of the Syariah Court? Although the amendments go a long way to solving the backlog of cases, it does not solve the original cause of the backlog, ie, the shortage of manpower in the Syariah Court. It is this shortage, if continued, which will lead to the impression not only in the Muslim community, but also in the professional law community of Singapore, that the Syariah Court is inefficient and lacks the expertise and knowledge to enable it to clear the cases under its jurisdiction in a speedy and systematic manner.

The enhanced power to be given to the President of Syariah Court to transfer documents, for example, in cases of settlement of matrimonial properties and custody, will help to strengthen the enforcement power of the Syariah Court and improve its credibility.

Some quarters believe that the concurrent jurisdiction between the Syariah Court and the Civil Court dilutes the power of the Syariah Court. In reality, however, even for cases transferred to the Civil Court, the rulings are to be consistent with the Muslim law. This system, however, can be further enhanced by the Civil Court concerned by appointing amicus curiae (Friend of the Court) to assist in clarifying the relevant aspects of the Muslim law. This Friend of the Court should be a Muslim scholar or someone who can advise the court on the Muslim law in order to ensure that the court rulings are consistent with the Muslim law.

Sir, other than that, I think it is timely that, in conjunction with the current amendments being tabled, the Government should also look into the issue of providing additional funding to the Syariah Court so that it would not appear that the Government seeks to permanently undermine the reputation and image of the Syariah Court vis-a-vis the Civil Court. At the same time, to ensure that there is no perception of gender bias, the Government should look into ensuring that the Syariah Court has adequate female representation, especially in relation to Family Law. In this, we do not have to "reinvent the wheel" as in Indonesia today, there are approximately 100 female judges, known as "Ibu Hakim", who preside over civil but not criminal cases.

This is especially pertinent in the light of the amendments empowering the Syariah Court to endorse its judgements. In this instance, the shortage of manpower would clearly be seen as an impediment to the greater powers accorded to the Syariah Court.

Mr Deputy Speaker, one further concern which I have over the amendments applying to the Syariah Court is the lack of clarity on the basis of which the Syariah Court should act when an application is made by one party to transfer its case to the Civil Court. A reading of the amendments shows that the Syariah Court cannot grant leave to commence civil proceedings unless every party involved has been given seven days' notice. However, in case one party disagrees to transfer the matrimonial, maintenance or custodial matter to the Civil Court, what principles will the Syariah Court use in its decision to transfer the case? I did not find guidance in the Amendment Bill on this point.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, I would like to reiterate that although I commend the amendments as set out in the Bill, in the long term, other measures which I have related above, ie, increasing the manpower of the Syariah Court, an investigation into the inclusion of female judges for the Syariah Court and further clarification on the principles applied by the Syariah Court in deciding on the transfer of cases to the Civil Court in case one party disagrees, will serve better towards improving the efficiency and reputation of the Syariah Court.

Mr Zulkifli Bin Baharudin (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in some countries, even where there is a much larger Muslim population compared to Singapore, it is common to find legislation on Muslim affairs which is separate from the State to allow Muslims to apply for themselves laws consistent with their religious beliefs. Many Muslims around the world live under conditions where Muslim laws and administration, especially Syariah laws and Islamic education, are completely separate and independent. But the need for official recognition and support by the secular state remains strong. This has led to uneasy divisions within the society which could potentially develop into emotional and complex political problems. On the contrary, AMLA which was first enacted in 1968 provides for issues of Muslim affairs to come under State administration with the Majlis to advise the President of Singapore on matters relating to the Muslim religion in Singapore.

In my view, the amendments proposed in this Bill must be seen as a significant step forward for the Muslim community in Singapore. Despite the occasional calls for separate and independent Muslim laws and administration, I feel that the interest of Muslims in Singapore is best preserved under the existing arrangement. These amendments to the Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA) to strengthen the two key Muslim institutions in Singapore must be welcomed. The Muslim community in Singapore faces many challenges: the need to strengthen family structures and prevent increasing occurrence of divorce; the need to ensure that Muslims continue to get the best of Muslim and secular education; and the need to ensure that Muslim civil and community organisations are strengthened. These can be best served by strengthening the key Muslim institutions through AMLA.

It is in this context that I wish to support this Bill that is placed before the House. However, there are several issues which have attracted much debate within the community. Feedback from the various sectors of the community indicate the need to allow the community to go through consensus, through musyawarah. Therefore, referring this Bill to a Select Committee is appropriate.

This Bill is certainly not one for quick decision-making. There are still sections of the community that are fearful that giving concurrent jurisdiction to the Civil and Syariah Courts will result in a dilution of the Islamic laws in the long run. With regard to divorce matters, there is still confusion about potential conflicts between civil and Islamic laws, especially on matters of matrimonial properties.

I would like to compliment the Minister for introducing the provisions which, I think, are forward looking and proactive and for referring this Bill to a Select Committee. However, I would like to ask the Minister for clarification and consideration on a number of points. Firstly, new section 3(2)(f) states that other functions may be conferred on MUIS by any other written law. Since AMLA is primarily concerned with creating MUIS to regulate Muslim affairs in Singapore, it should be restricted to that function and no others. In my view, it is not intended to be an omnibus Act to accept roles and functions outside its jurisdiction. Further expansion of the roles of MUIS should be debated in the context of this Act.

New section 5 gives powers to MUIS to form or participate in any company or through joint ventures. Is MUIS designed to be a business organisation? This, I think, is a departure from the original purpose of having an organisation like MUIS. Even so, what are the limits of accountability and responsibility for those handling the commercial interest of MUIS?

New section 26 is a good amendment for it provides for better accountability and responsibility of those who have been delegated powers to act on behalf of MUIS.

New section 35A, I think, is a good amendment as it prevents parties from filing multiple suits. One question is: will the parties get the same remedies in the Syariah Court as they will in the Civil Court? This is problematic because if the Syariah Court refuses leave to commence proceedings in the Civil Court and if the ouster clause under section 56A comes into force, then the parties will not be able to get the remedies under civil law at all. The new sections 35A and 35B are useful in that they prevent forum shopping, a case where litigants shop around for the courts which will give them the best deal and hence multiplicity of suits. It also limits the litigants to remedies which are available under the Muslim law and the Syariah Court can effectively prevent litigants from having recourse to a Civil Court.

I welcome new section 52 to bring amendments closer and in line with the Women's Charter provided the inherent inconsistencies and conflicts can be resolved and agreed by the community. I welcome extra powers given to the Syariah Court to enforce these orders.

I find new section 56A a very curious amendment. The existing section 55(7) already provides that the decision of the Appeal Board shall be final. But it does not make sense to say that any decision of the Syariah Court shall be final and conclusive when there is an appeal to the Appeal Board. As section 55(7) already provides that the decision of the Appeal Board shall be final, it is clear that this decision cannot be appealed against. The attempt to exclude any form of judicial review of decisions of the Appeal Board or the court is contrary to established principles of judicial review. What if the decisions of the Appeal Board are reached in breach of the fundamental rules of justice? The litigant will be without recourse. In any case, the use of this ouster clause has been unsuccessful in ousting the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. A similar clause is found in section 46 of the Industrial Relations Act and it was held in the local case of application of Yee Yut Ee by Justice Mr Choor Singh to be ineffective. There are of course numerous other examples of English law.

Besides these specific provisions, there are other major issues which come under the provisions of AMLA and which, in my view, require the support and consensus of the community.

Resources of the Syariah Court

There are concerns that the proposed amendments have been made more urgent and necessary in order to avoid the backlog of cases in the Syariah Court. Therefore, the organisational structure, resources and manpower needs of the Syariah Court must be reviewed in the context of this Bill to ensure prompt handling of post-divorce cases. The resources to enforce orders of the Syariah Court must be looked into.

There is also concern whether there will be sufficient suitably qualified judges in the Syariah Court as it would be difficult to find someone with the necessary qualifications in Islamic law amongst the qualified professionals in the legal fraternity. Perhaps, we should look at the possibility of tapping the resources of the Judiciary to meet the needs of the Syariah Court. It is clear that the Syariah Court needs to be strengthened not only in its legal provisions but also in manpower and resources.

Financial provisions relating to trust, wakaf, nazar and mosque

The activities of mosques have recently seen vast improvements with mosques providing a whole range of community-based services. The financial provisions specifying the need for greater financial accountability and financial reporting is indeed timely and appropriate. Perhaps it is also timely to discuss professionalism of mosque administration and streamlining activities and services offered by mosques so as to avoid duplication and ensuring high standards of services that the Muslim community so deserves.

Recognition of Syariah Court

There have been calls for the Syariah Court to be elevated to the status of a court, making it part of the judiciary instead of the present status of a tribunal under the Ministry of Community Development.

Sir, we have made good progress through these amendments. We have seen and heard of the strong desire of the Muslim community to participate and contribute in formulating policies for AMLA. We certainly can give this matter more time so that the Malay/Muslim community can decide for themselves on the various conflicting issues which only the community can decide through consensus. I am sure out of this may emerge a stronger sense of agreement and support and commitment that this Bill so deserves.

Mr Shriniwas Rai: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am obliged to you for giving me this opportunity.

Sir, shortly after gaining independence in 1965, the Government introduced AMLA. The Bill was sent to a Select Committee. Representations were made and the law came into effect in 1968. There have been various amendments.

Now, there is a major amendment before the House and I am indebted to the Minister. He has listened to the public views. There has been a report in the Straits Times that AMP and others are concerned about certain clauses of the Bill. I think it is appropriate that this House commits this Bill to a Select Committee where we could hear the concerns of the Muslim community and at the Select Committee, if need be, further improvements could be made.

Sir, the life of a law is not logic but experience. I speak before this House as a practising lawyer. Some of the points that have been in my mind have already been taken up by my colleagues. So I shall not duplicate but I shall try to reorientate myself.

Sir, the Bill will improve the administration of justice in Singapore. As the Minister has pointed out, the Syariah Court is not in a position to deliver the goods. What is the choice before the country? Do we wait and let the Syariah Court system exist as it is and let the Muslim friends suffer? I think the Minister and the Government have wisely decided to bring this change. And the change, Sir, is not forcing on any Muslim. A choice of jurisdiction is his or her right and I will shortly state to this House various other matters affecting the personal law of the Muslims. The Muslims have the choice in the past. They are going to be given the same choice now.

Take the case of the Central Provident Fund and the law of inheritance. If a Muslim decides to nominate, so be it. You follow the nomination. But if he wants to follow the law of Islam, intestate, then Muslim law will follow. Take the case of the Maintenance of Parents Act. A Muslim parent who has not been maintained can go to the Tribunal. Under the Women's Charter, Muslims have gone to the Magistrate's Courts and obtained maintenance. The figures have been released by the Minister.

Sir, in the final analysis, it is the choice of the Muslim community. If there is any conflict, of course, the leave of the Syariah Court has to be obtained. But where both parties agree and they think that they can get better justice in a Civil Court, why not.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the question that is of concern to some Members of this House is this. Can we reorganise the Syariah Court? And the Minister has agreed that there is a need and I think this should be done. I wholeheartedly agree with Mr Zulkifli when he said that perhaps we could look to the resources of the Civil Courts. Could we have some of the bright and young Magistrates and District Judges transferred to the Syariah Court? They could be trained in Islamic law. It is not a difficult thing. I think this is something that the Minister may want to consider. Nevertheless, some attempts must be made to reorganise the Syariah Court. I think the community is concerned. But this is not possible now. I think the immediate problem, as I said earlier, is to get on with the disposal of the cases.

Sir, there is one aspect of this Bill which I seek the indulgence of the Minister. I beg to differ. The Bill, as it stands, there is going to be one more President. I think the other alternative which I would suggest is to appoint Deputy Presidents. In the case of the Strata Titles Board, we have Mr Tan Lian Ker as the President. Then there is a Deputy President, Mr Gan Hiang Chye. There are similar examples. My fear is this. If there are too many Presidents, there is a question of protocol, there is a question of conflict. So I think at the proper time, at the Select Committee perhaps, this matter should be addressed.

Sir, MUIS, in the last few years, has come of age. And I say this sincerely because I have seen how many wakaf properties have been developed for the benefit of the Muslim community. Therefore, I see the increase in jurisdiction would be welcomed.

I am especially glad that trustees are now required to be more prudent and the accounts have to be prepared and audited by an auditor. I think it is important to have proper checks and balances and perhaps we could take a leaf from this Bill and we should even think of amending the Societies Act. The people who handle public funds must keep proper accounts. And in the case of MUIS, it has got wakaf and other trusts as well and I think the Schedule that has been attached to this Bill is welcomed.

Sir, the Bill is trying to overcome a lacuna as a result of two decisions of the Supreme Court which the Minister has referred to. The cases are Salijah vs Abdullah Teo and Lathibaby. If not for these decisions, I think the need would not have been that pressing. But because of these two decisions, I think it is important that the law be set right. It is the prerogative of this Parliament whenever there is a lacuna in the law. We must respond and I think the Minister has rightly responded. He has been cautious. He has waited long. He has consulted the Muslim bodies. He has done service to the Muslim community, but there is still some doubt. We will leave that to the Select Committee.

Sir, the concern that we have is this. What type of Muslim society we are going to build in the context of Singapore? A progressive Muslim society or a society that is conservative and is not prepared to change? I think it is to the credit of the Muslim community here, with the setting up of MENDAKI which is another by-product of MUIS itself, the Muslim community has come of age. MUIS has become part and parcel of the national institution. All Muslims can be proud of MUIS. As I said earlier, I had many things to say but because all that I wanted to say have been repeated by many Members, all I can say is that I support the Bill and I am glad that it is going to a Select Committee. I have some reservations which I have addressed and I hope the Minister would consider them.

Mr R. Ravindran (Bukit Timah): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the proposed amendments in the Bill.

Sir, the proposed amendments seek to rectify some existing inadequacies in some areas of Syariah Court powers and procedures. I commend the Minister for being very forward looking in bringing forward these amendments expeditiously.

Sir, first of all, I would like to declare my interest that I have represented some clients in Syariah Court matters in the past. I have also taken the trouble to consult some of the legal practitioners who practise in the Syariah Court and I would like to inform the Minister that the feedback has been positive in looking at these amendments.

Sir, the Syariah Court is a new institution in Singapore when it was introduced in 1968. In fact, it is one that should be considered as a young institution because of its number of years in existence. In comparison to the Civil Courts in Singapore which have been in existence since the second charter of justice in 1826, they have a vast and long history. But even with such a long history, anomalies and loopholes do exist in the law and even in procedures. And it is because of that that many amendments have been made to laws and procedures in this House. As such, the amendments, as they come before the courts, equally show that loopholes and lacunas can appear in all forms of law, and the AMLA law is no exception. Sir, in that sense, I am glad many of the inadequacies and weaknesses have come up and that this Bill has come to this House for timely reform.

Sir, with the recent increase in the number of divorces, both Muslim and non-Muslim, many divorce couples are looking forward to quicker remedies and faster procedures. Some Muslims consider that some of the procedures in the Civil Courts are faster. Here, I must say that some 10 years ago, I noticed that there were delays and a long backlog of cases in the Syariah Court. But I was pleasantly surprised that last month when I visited the Syariah Court, as part of the Service Improvement Unit, drastic changes had taken place in the Syariah Court. I was impressed with the major administrative changes that had taken place. They have introduced many of the administrative measures that have been undertaken in the Subordinate Courts and in the High Court. Instances like case management, time schedules, fixed dates for clearing of backlog cases, all these are very impressive changes and I am glad that administrative changes have been introduced. I think it is a step forward in improving the administrative efficiency of the Syariah Court.

Sir, having said so, I must impress upon this House that many of the plaintiffs who resorted to the Civil Court to get the right remedy resorted to it, not because they felt that the civil law afforded a better remedy, but, unfortunately, the Syariah Court did not possess these powers in the first place, and because some of these powers were lacking, they resorted to the Civil Courts. But with the introduction of these powers in the Syariah Court, I think it will go towards strengthening the Syariah Court and hence prevent an exodus, which is the fear of some in the community towards the Syariah Court.

Sir, I would like to take the House through some of the major changes in the Bill. Let me, first, take new section 35A. This section covers two subjects: (i) the disposition of property on divorce; and (ii) custody of child. The proposed scheme means that (i) once proceedings are commenced in the Syariah Court, parties may not commence civil proceedings in any court relating to the above issues unless there is leave of the Syariah Court. And (ii) where such civil proceedings have been commenced prior to proceedings in the Syariah Court, then such proceedings may not continue unless there is leave of the Syariah Court or by consent of the parties.

Sir, let me now move on to the area of custody of child. It has become clear that the High Court has no jurisdiction over custody matters under section 16 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act where parties are Muslims or married under Muslim law. The powers of the Syariah Court to order custody are found in section 52 of AMLA.

The above section, which is a new section, Sir, seeks to confirm the decision in the case of Lathibaby Bevi v Abdul Mustapha. In that case, Sir, the High Court ruled that where there have been proceedings in the Syariah Court, then only the Syariah Court has jurisdiction over the same. That decision implied that civil proceedings may be instituted so long as there are no proceedings in the Syariah Court. Once proceedings are commenced in the Syariah Court, then the Syariah Court assumes jurisdiction to the exclusion of the other Courts. The amendment seeks to tidy this principle by the mechanism of issuing commencement and discontinuance certificates before the Court can assume jurisdiction.

This is definitely a welcome procedure as:

(1) It is the Syariah Court that holds the key to the commencement or continuance of proceedings in the civil courts; and

(2) The second key is held by the parties themselves. It is the parties who must consent to the commencement or continuance of the action in the Civil Court. Here, the proposed introduction of the new section 17A to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act requires the High Court in future to exercise jurisdiction only with the relevant certificate from the Syariah Court or with the consent of both parties before it. The Civil Court cannot, I repeat, automatically assume jurisdiction over such matters. I believe there is some misunderstanding among some members in the Malay community who assume that the Civil Court will automatically assume jurisdiction once the matter goes before the Civil Court. I think this is something that perhaps the Minister could clarify in the course of the Select Committee hearings or when subsequently the matter comes up. Here, it is the Syariah Court that determines how many cases go to the Civil Court. If the Syariah Court decides to be strict and tells the parties that appear before it that it has now got the full powers to make the decision that a Civil Court can make, then I think the number of cases that will end up going to the Civil Court will be limited. I think there are not many cases that both parties consent to go to the civil courts. So the fear of some members in the community that the Syariah Court will be very liberal in issuing the certificate so that they can go to the Civil Court, I think at this juncture, is something which is premature.

The other key, which is being held by the two parties to the action, is that only when both of them consent can the matter go before the Civil Court. So the Civil Court cannot exercise jurisdiction in the absence of consent from both parties. In any event, if one party is unhappy that the other party has resorted to the Civil Court, they can always go back to the Syariah Court and inform the Syariah Court that the certificate should not be issued and that the matter should be heard by the Syariah Court. At the end of the day, the Syariah Court determines whether the matter should go before the Civil Court or not in the absence of consent from both parties.

Sir, in the other area where section 35 makes a major change is that while the Syariah Court has jurisdiction under section 35(2) of AMLA to order the disposition or division of property, problems have surfaced in the past in post-divorce applications which have forced parties to seek remedies from the High Court. It was, I repeat, the absence of appropriate remedy in AMLA which has forced parties to resort to the Civil Court. However, the courts, like the Court of Appeal in the case of Salijah bte Abdul Latif v Irwan bin Abdulah Teo, have ruled that it does not have jurisdiction to hear the issue of disposition or division of property where it involves Muslim parties. The proposed amendment once again seeks to create a new door to the Civil Court in the area of disposition or division of property provided the conditions laid down are complied with.

There is another area which I note from the discussion in this House which has raised concern among some Members, and this is in the area of concurrent jurisdiction. Effectively, the new section 35A creates concurrent jurisdiction in giving powers both to the Syariah Court and the civil courts in the two areas I have highlighted, ie, disposition of property and custody of child. Naturally, there are arguments for and against the creation of such concurrent jurisdiction. Having acted for parties in the past in Syariah Court matters, I must say that Muslim Singaporeans are fortunate that they have two legal forums to seek remedies instead of one which many Singaporeans are at present entitled to.

Sir, in addition, at the end of the day, what matters is: are the parties who are going to the court happy with the decision? Are they happy that they have received justice? Has any one of these parties who have gone before the court complained to the Civil Court that because they were Muslims they have been unfairly treated, that they have been unjustly treated, that the law has been applied unjustly? Here, I must say that I have not heard any Muslim party who has gone to the Civil Courts complaining that the law has been unjustly applied to them. I would highlight an instance later on where I feel that many of the principles which are found in the Civil Courts and under Muslim law are similar.

In the area of maintenance, the present section 35(2) provides that the Syariah Court has jurisdiction to hear matters relating to maintenance. Section 3(1) and (2) of the Women's Charter also entitles Muslim parties to bring maintenance matters to the Civil Courts. Civil Courts have been accepting applications for maintenance by Muslim women for their or their children's maintenance. Some resort to the Civil Courts because of expediency and also the enforcement powers available to the Civil Courts. Here again, Sir, in the past, many resorted to the Civil Courts because there was delay in the way maintenance proceedings were going in the Syariah Court. But I must once again reiterate that what came out during my visit last month was that measures are being taken by the Syariah Court to speed up the collection of maintenance. They have now introduced a computerised system of tracking maintenance payments. As such, the ability of the Syariah Court to move in the area of collection of maintenance arrears will be improved. I think the number of Muslim couples who will go to the Civil Courts to claim maintenance may see a decline in the long run.

The new section 35B confirms the present scheme of arrangement within the Civil Court and the Syariah Court and makes it clear that once civil proceedings in respect of maintenance proceedings are commenced, the Syariah Court shall stay the proceedings before it involving the same matter. Here again, there are once again arguments for and against the exercise of this concurrent jurisdiction by two different Court systems.

The Malay Muslim community in Singapore has been happy with this arrangement in the past because they know that it benefits the community. The two proposals that have now come about in section 35 which involve custody and the disposition of property. Once they see the full implementation of the two provisions, they will realise that it actually benefits the community because it leads to the expeditious disposal of cases, whether by the Syariah Court, or in the event of consent by both parties, by the Civil Court.

Another area that I would like to highlight is the new section 51(4). This is a new power which was missing in AMLA. This is definitely a welcome proposal as all courts must have powers to vary or rescind their orders, particularly in matrimonial matters when circumstances change along the way. However, the grounds for varying or rescinding the orders appear in the amendments to be limited to only three grounds. I believe that the three grounds that are stated in the section are very restrictive and perhaps a wider term could have been chosen to provide for greater exercise of discretion by the Syariah Court. The same comment would apply to the new section 52(7).

Sir, in respect of the new section 51(5), I feel that providing for a prison sentence in the case where one party is in contempt of court is a little drastic. Perhaps the option of a fine or a prison sentence may be appropriate to suit varying degrees of contempt of court.

I would also like to move on to the new section 52(3). Here again, this is also a welcome provision. There have been cases in the past where parties got their divorces effected by a Kadi under section 102. In many of these cases, Sir, ancillary issues such as custody and disposition of property were not addressed and recorded as part of the divorce terms. When parties could not settle these issues, they could not go back to the Kadi as after the divorce he becomes functus officio. Neither could the parties refer these matters to the Syariah Court because the present section 52 suggests that the powers of the Syariah Court are restricted to making orders in respect of proceedings in the Syariah Court and do not include divorces by a Kadi. This was confirmed in the decision of the Court of Appeal in a recent case.

The proposed amendment specifically gives the Syariah Court the powers to make orders in respect of divorces by a Kadi under section 102, whether such divorces are registered before or after the commencement of these amendments. It will definitely be a relief to many who have been caught without a venue to sort out their ancillary matters.

Sir, the new section 52(6) is something that I would say is a marvellous provision. This section seeks to incorporate the principles that are found in section 112 of the Women's Charter. Section 112 of the Women's Charter lays down the factors that the Civil Courts will take into account in looking into the disposition of matrimonial property. But there is a proviso that the Syariah Court in applying section 112 will ensure that it is consistent with Muslim law. The aim appears to be to give clear guidelines to the Court and to the parties as to their rights over their matrimonial property. I am informed by many of my colleagues who practise in the Syariah Court that many of the principles that are found in section 112 of the Women's Charter have already been applied by the Appeal Board in many of its decisions in so far as they are not inconsistent with the Muslim law, although the Board did not refer specifically to section 112 in its decision. This is the section that I would like to highlight. There are many provisions in the Women's Charter or in other areas where, I believe, the principles that are taken by the court into account, whether it is the Syariah Court or the Civil Court, may actually overlap, and at the end of the day, the object of the exercise is to ensure that parties in their post-divorce matters are treated fairly and that justice is accessible to both of them.

I have also learnt from some Muslim practitioners that the proviso that the law be not inconsistent with Muslim law is important as there are differences between Muslim law and the Women's Charter in this respect. For instance, the non-payment of iddah and mutaah has been held to affect the share in the matrimonial flat (there is an Appeal Board Case No. 14/95) whereas these are matters which are irrelevant under the Women's Charter.

Sir, the new section 53A is also something that should be welcomed. Here, it gives the President of the Syariah Court the power to execute documents where a party who is ordered to do so is absent, neglects or refuses to do so. This will ensure that the situation that arose in Salijah's case does not arise again.

Looking at the amendments, one would notice that it is possible for a party to go through three courts in the process. For the issue of divorce, iddah and mutaah, they may have to go to the Syariah Court. On the issue of custody and matrimonial assets, they may go to the Family Court. On the enforcement of certain orders, they may have to go to the District Court. At the moment, if one looks at the location of these three courts, one is in MCD Building in Thomsom Road, the Family Court is located at Patterson Road and the High Court is located just within walking distance of this House, what this means to a layman is that to obtain different remedies he has to go to three different venues. I would urge the Minister that in the long term process of locating the Syariah Court, to explore the possibility of locating the Syariah Court within the Family Court complex so that it is very convenient for lay persons who access the courts to go to one location where they can have all their remedies in one place.

In conclusion, let me just say that there has been concern expressed that the new amendments may mean a big shift in the number of ancillary matters pertaining to Muslims being heard by the Civil Court. I do not think so. The Syariah Court has become dynamic and efficient. It has become proactive and has adopted some new strategies to resolving matrimonial disputes such as mediation, counselling and other new technologies. It has also gone into computerised tracking of maintenance payments. I think the Syariah Court can rise to the challenge and meet the needs of its customers and not fear a big shift of cases to the Civil Courts. The prospect of this happening should become lesser, as I have reiterated earlier, Sir, as many Muslim parties have resorted to the Civil Courts in the past because of the lack of appropriate remedy in the Syariah Court. But this should change with the new amendments. In any event, proceedings in the Syariah Court are attractive also as they cost much less than those in the Civil Courts. With new case management, time schedule, backlogs of cases and delays should be a thing of the past.

Sir, I am quite sure that the Muslim community in Singapore would be eager to give its input before the new Bill is passed as law. It is a Bill that will affect the Muslim community. I am quite sure that there will be some areas where the Bill can be improved. For that reason, I applaud the decision of the Hon. Minister to refer the Bill to a Select Committee so that all viewpoints of the Muslim community could be heard and a considered decision taken. In doing so, I would particularly like to urge the Minister to obtain representation from the members of the legal profession who specialise in Syariah Court matters and also Muslim women groups, because I believe Muslim women form a large majority of those who have resorted to Civil Courts in the past. So I think their feedback will be useful.

Sir, on that note, I support the Bill.

Mdm Claire Chiang See Ngoh (Nominated Member): Thank you, Sir, for this opportunity. Being the last speaker, I hope I still get your attention.

I had thought that this amendment would be a welcome instrument for the administration of justice in the Muslim community. In soliciting feedback from grassroots organisations and Muslim friends that I know of, I observe three conflicting viewpoints:

Firstly, there are Muslim men and women who welcome the amendment and feel that the concurrent or parallel jurisdiction in both the Syariah and Civil Courts offers another option and avenue for grievance articulation and dispute settlement. Some Muslim women feel that Civil Court intervention under the Women's Charter compensates them more and protects their rights equally like the non-Muslim sisters. On the procedural challenges, the Syariah Court has been criticised for lacking the sophisticated procedural mechanisms that the Supreme Court has for proper administration of justice. Petitioners have to wait far too long to settle their disputes in the Syariah Court due to low manpower and resources. By having Civil Court intervention, Muslim petitioners hope to see faster and effective response to their disputes.

On the other hand, the application of civil law to Muslim matters is controversial. I hear from other Muslim men and women that this amendment changes the substantive rights of Muslims, for example, in the way matrimonial assets were defined differently under the Syariah Court and Women's Charter. This Bill seeks to deal with the administrative problems faced by the Syariah Court by giving the Supreme Court concurrent jurisdiction in the resolution of matters which are ancillary to divorce such as maintenance, custody of children and division of matrimonial assets. The problem is that the law applied by the Supreme Court in hearing cases which have been transferred from the Syariah Court will be the civil law, ie, the Women's Charter. What if there is a conflict between the Supreme Court and the Syariah Court? Matrimonial assets under the Syariah Court do not include possessions before marriage, but under the Women's Charter, they do. Concurrent jurisdiction therefore may dilute, as argued by Association of Muslim Professionals in a public statement a few days ago, the status and authority of the Syariah Court in enforcing the substantive rights of the parties under Muslim law.

Proponents of this view assert that the Syariah Court is the supreme adjudicative body which must be strengthened by adding more resources and personnel to its operation to assist it to be effective in clearing its case overload and delivering adequate service to the community. For them, there is no need for concurrent jurisdiction as this may only confuse the petitioners as well as legal practitioners who now have two different forums to choose from which best suit the interests of their clients. Any change of tack by petitioners from using one forum to another will create even more litigation hurdles and administrative ambiguity. And when children are involved and have to be dragged into different courts to testify, the scene can be messy and emotionally trying. Mr Ravindran has portrayed a very different picture in his legal experiences. Again, this needs further clarification and verification. I am glad to hear from Mr Ravindran also that it is not easy to switch from one court to another. But this has to be communicated and clarified with the community.

Moderate opponents to this amendment are willing to accept the amendment for the sake of meeting current case pressures as long as the concurrent jurisdiction is only an interim measure and the Syariah Court will over time be strengthened and recognised as the final authority in adjudicating the substantive rights and procedural mechanism in the administration of Muslim affairs. Conscious development must then follow to give the Syariah Court certain essential procedural mechanisms as well as enforcement powers to carry out proper administration of justice.

The third conflicting view, which I observed is the most thorny one, deals with the process of consultation between the State and the Muslim community. Some sections of the community groups feel that the amendment was proposed without adequate consultation. Policymakers did not carry the ground by giving more time and attention to reviewing the issues with community leaders and helping them to get a fuller and clearer understanding of the rationale of the amendment. On the other hand, the Ministry has also failed to get appropriate feedback from the community to help improve the proposed amendments.

In short, it was felt that given what is arguably the most radical change to the AMLA ever since its promulgation in 1968, the process from conceptualisation to decision fixing must be given significant time to enable the Muslim community more opportunity to reflect and offer feedback on the matter. The process was too rushed, top-down and did not include a broader base of viewpoints and recommendations for desired change. For some, this amendment at best represents only selective viewpoints.

I am sure the Ministry of Community Development and the Minister must have consulted various grassroots Muslim agencies on what "best legal practices" to adopt to act in the interest of the community. There might have been different starting points and ending points in the consultation process with diverse groups. Leading community agencies may not have explained the issues as well. What was clear was that the process failed to capture the contentious sentiments on this matter. What is certain, it seems to me, is that the Muslim community does not yet agree if concurrent jurisdiction is a good strategy to serve the interest of the petitioners. Even less certain is how they would agree on a broader problem on who defines what changes for whom, for what purposes and how? There are apparent different responses to this broad concern arising from fundamental differences based on gender, nature of interpretation of the Islam faith, sectoral and professional interests.

Being a non-Muslim, I cannot pretend to understand the full implication of the AMLA on the followers of Islam. I am far from understanding the disputes relating to divorces known in the Muslim law, as I learn, fasakh, cerai taklik, khuluk and talak. I cannot therefore at this juncture take a stand on a secular platform to make hasty judgement on matters which are evidently delicate and sensitive. Neither can I point out the insufficiencies of the proposed provisions in the amendment or tackle the fine-tuning of some of the clauses which some Muslim legal practitioners have raised and submitted a proposal to the Ministry for review. I suspect on this matter, after hearing so many different opinions from the hon. Members, there will be very different opinions from the professional and lay community.

However, I feel that as a Singaporean in a multi-cultural society, I must discharge my responsibility in being part of an "active citizenry" by exercising some degree of empathetic reasoning on matters of tremendous importance to my compatriots. Even if I cannot pass a last judgement, I could contribute to the process of debate by simply surfacing, as I am doing now, the conflicting concerns of a particular community which I have had the opportunity to learn about. In the final analysis, short of a higher level order which allows the State to articulate and enforce clear principles of adjudication over and above ethnic and religious specificities, I feel that the Muslim community has to decide what and how they propose to manage the mounting challenges faced by the Syariah Court and the role of the State is to facilitate, and negotiate for, some degree of consensus in the conflicting viewpoints within the community.

On this view, I strongly support the call for this amendment to be put to a Select Committee for further deliberations and closer scrutiny. I would recommend, Sir, that the Ministry get more feedback from as many Muslim groups as possible, as well as from members of the public through the media and written representations. It would be helpful to tell the public the rationale and background factors as to why this amendment was raised and what outcome was intended. I believe this gesture of openness will sit well in the community, in view of our current discourse on developing a people sector, a brilliant concept recently used by Minister Teo Chee Hean, to show that space and process time are provided for citizens to work out their cohesion and the sense of relevance. Let the Muslim community and its multifarious groups carry out a reality check among themselves and if they cannot reach consensus, and the State has to be the final arbiter, they at least had the opportunity to say they agree to disagree in defining a significant piece of legislation. We must give time, Sir, and respect for such effort.

Mr Shriniwas Rai: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have left out a point just now. I urge the Minister to write to the Law Society to ask for its representation. I believe the Law Society has formed a committee in this regard and perhaps he may want to consider writing to them for representation.

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: Mr Rai may wish to know that, in fact, the Muslim Law Committee of the Law Society has submitted a report to me.

Sir, it has been a very long day. Since the Bill will go to a Select Committee, I do not intend to go through in detail the replies. Suffice it to say that I would address the main points which Members have brought up.

First, I would like to thank Members for speaking and the strong support given by my colleagues. I would like to specially thank Mr Ravindran for the clarification which he gave from the practitioner's viewpoint, especially the point about Syariah Court having made improvements which, unfortunately, not many people know about. But, anyway, we will persevere, and we will continue to improve the Syariah Court.

Sir, I hope Members will bear with me, as I said, if I do not reply to all the questions in the interest of time. But I just like to highlight the concerns which the community has brought up. Of all the amendments, the main concern, which has been brought up by the Muslim community, is the matter of concurrent jurisdiction. Some of the concerns are the result of a lack of understanding of the full provisions. Some of the concerns are genuine in the sense that they feel that they do not fulfil the aspirations of the community. If I could somehow categorise these concerns, I would put them thus: First, there were concerns that the Civil Courts could reach decisions which would contradict Muslim law. As I said earlier, Sir, the concurrent jurisdiction has, de facto, been happening all the time. In fact, Muslims have been going to the Civil Court and Syariah Court all this time. So far, there has not been any complaint about the injustice or the decision of the Civil Court being against them. I understand, Sir, that in matters of custody especially - and this matter of custody is one of the most sensitive areas which the Muslims have brought up - when it relates to the children's religion, the moral and religious upbringing of the child is a factor which is considered by the court also. In any case, the interest and welfare of the child are foremost, which is the same also in the Syariah Court.

The second concern is that concurrent jurisdiction may erode or dilute the stature and image of the Syariah Court. I disagree, Sir, because given the additional powers which we are giving to the Syariah Court now, indeed, it will increase the stature and power of the Syariah Court. I would like to supplement this with what I said just now that we will continue to develop the Syariah Court and look into how and in what areas the Syariah Court could be improved so that it can be an institution which the community can be confident and proud of and which can fulfil the aspirations of the community.

Thirdly, Sir, there is the fear that there would be an exodus of Muslim couples, instead of going to the Syariah Court, now going to the Civil Court because of the concurrent jurisdiction. I, again, disagree, Sir. I think it has been pointed out by Mr Ravindran just now that, in all likelihood, there would be a decrease of Muslim couples going to the Civil Court because they are more aware now, especially with all this public debate about the Syariah Court and the Civil Court. Because of this awareness, I think there is a higher likelihood of Muslims now looking towards the Syariah Court than the Civil Court. Anyway, my Ministry and the Syariah Court are going to monitor whether this exodus does, indeed, take place.

The fourth concern is that they hope that the concurrent jurisdiction, if it is unavoidable, ought to be temporary. As I said, we will monitor the developments both in the Syariah Court and the Civil Court. We hope to develop the Syariah Court to a level whereby it can be the kind of institution which the Muslim community hopes for and where the Muslim community will increasingly depend on. While I cannot say how long this concurrent jurisdiction will carry on, I would suggest that we leave the concurrent jurisdiction as it is first. We carry on and, in the meantime, we will continue to develop the Syariah Court. Because, ultimately, Sir, it is not whether or not there is concurrent jurisdiction, but how the Syariah Court is being perceived by the community as fulfilling their aspirations. How do we instil confidence and pride in the Syariah Court? The only way to do it is to assure that the Syariah Court is effective, it is prompt in deciding its cases and it has the requisite expertise, manpower and facilities to do the job well. This, as I said, we will continue to pay attention to.

Ultimately, Sir, it is a question of choice. What we are giving here is that the Muslim community would have a choice of either going to the Syariah Court or the Civil Court. Being aware of their rights and what the courts can do, I think they are in a better position to make their choice now. I feel that we should not take away this choice from the Muslims.

The community should adopt the attitude which Mr Ravindran proposes just now, ie, to see how the amendments are implemented and to give it a chance to be implemented. For all you know, the implementation of the amendments will satisfy what the Muslim community is hoping for.

There are various specific questions asked by Members. I am not going to reply to all and, my officers have taken note of all the suggestions. But I would like to address what Mr Harun Ghani mentioned just now. I am afraid I cannot recite a pantun as he did, because in the translation of the pantun, it may appear differently. But he did say that we need not specify concurrent jurisdiction and, by doing so, the whole problem will be solved because de facto we already have concurrent jurisdiction. I am afraid that cannot be done because, as a result of the Lathibaby's case, the Civil Court has made it very clear that whatever is in the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court, it cannot be touched by the Civil Court. So we have to make this provision in the amendment.

I would also like to address one particular point brought up by Mdm Claire Chiang who argued that we are in fact solving administrative problems through concurrent jurisdiction. It is not wholly true because, as I said, we are merely reinstating what has been happening all this time. I said just now too that we ought to adhere to the principle of not denying Muslims a choice of which forum they want to go to. So it is not a question of merely trying to solve administrative problems and therefore we resort to concurrent jurisdiction with the Civil Courts.

I would like to touch on Mr Hawazi's speech. He made two interesting points. One is the appointment of amicus curiae (Friend of Court). This is a measure which we could think about and see whether it can be applicable. The other point is the appointment of female Muslim judges in the Syariah Court. I am not too sure what the implications are in terms of Syariah law. But, again, this is something perhaps we could look into carefully.

There are various small points which I would not touch on, as I said, in the interest of time. But I would like to assure Members that whether or not the amendments fulfil the aspirations of the community, I think, it has to be seen. The Malay MPs and myself have looked carefully into the amendments and we feel that the amendments will help significantly in improving the justice system in Singapore, not only for Muslims but also as a legal system that exists in Singapore.

Sir, I would commend Members to tell those who are interested in coming up with suggestions or those who feel that they want to make representations to the Select Committee, to do so. The Select Committee will be more than pleased to receive the representations.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Resolved,

That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and such Members the Committee of Selection may nominate. - [Mr Abdullah Tarmugi].